nasen Responds to the Curriculum and Assessment Review
The Government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review is a once in a lifetime opportunity to influence the evolution of an education system that works for all children and young people, preparing them to thrive at every age and stage and to reach their potential to live happy and fulfilling adult lives.
This Call for Evidence will inform recommendations for reform, which are expected to be published in Autumn 2025. It is open to anyone with an interest in the education and experiences of young people aged 5-19 and will consider the national curriculum and statutory assessment system in England, including qualification pathways. It aims to understand the strengths in the current system, the areas that most need change and to gather insights about how to do this in a way that is consistent with manageable and sustainable workload for practitioners.
The Review will place particular emphasis on driving positive change for three groups of learners who face more significant challenge than their peers:
-
learners from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds
-
learners with SEND
-
learners who are otherwise vulnerable.
Of course, we know that there will be much cross over between learners belonging to these groups, and for those of us invested in any of these three spaces, it is an important opportunity to share our long-standing views of an exclusionary system that is poorly equipped to meet the needs of all children and young people in England.
Adding to the complexities of intersectionality, is the fact that when we speak ‘specifically’ about SEND, we are again referring to the most enormous concept. It is important that the Review recognises that the SEND community embraces such a broad spectrum of needs and our approach must be adapted at a range of levels. Without this acknowledgement, there is a danger that our response could be seen as tokenistic.
Why does curriculum matter?
With evidence to show that school curriculum is inextricably linked to students’ life satisfaction and wellbeing, the importance of a broad, rich and fulfilling curriculum is clear. The challenge for the Review team will be how to ensure that their recommendations make changes to ensure that it is fully inclusive, accessible and addresses injustices.
When the Review is implemented, all state schools – including academies – will be required to teach the national curriculum, albeit there is awareness that some education settings – specialist schools, for example – may need to adapt it to suit the needs of their learners. Specific advice on how this should be done remains outside of the scope of the Review, but we know that our members will be pleased to hear that evidence from settings who use expertise and innovative practices to help learners engage with the curriculum and assessment system will be warmly welcomed
How can we expect the Review to improve assessments
The Government acknowledges that the current system is failing more than a third of young people who do not achieve 5 GCSEs at grade 4 or above. There is a need to address these gaps in attainment – particularly for the three groups of significant interest – and move to a system that offers a broader range of well recognised routes, creating better choice and more equitable life-chances.
While the Review does not intend to remove qualifications like T levels, GCSEs and A levels – in fact, it recognises their importance – it is an opportunity to consider a more flexible approach to qualifications in England with a view to creating a balanced assessment system that captures the strengths of every young person, removes limits and alleviates pressure. It will look for ways to reduce the assessment burden where possible, and promote meaningful qualifications that are manageable, valid, fair and reliable.
Practical information about taking part in the Call for Evidence
Our organisational response was submitted this morning, based on the views and extensive experience of our in-house education team as well as our members, who have shared thoughts with us via an online survey and through online consultation meetings.
The number of unique responses to the Call for Evidence really matters. The more often common themes are voiced, the more loudly our message will be amplified. Please, therefore, do not let the opportunity to make your voice heard pass you by!
There are 54 questions in total, but you do not have to answer them all. We have highlighted questions (see below) which may help you address the themes that are most important to you. The nasen response is detailed below, which may be helpful when thinking about what you want to say as an individual.
SECTION 3: Social justice and inclusion
The National Association for Special Educational Needs (nasen) would start by asking for better acknowledgement of the significant differences between mainstream and specialist settings in view of their curriculum, assessment systems and qualification pathways. There are multiple layers of curriculum entitlement that need to be considered.
We feel there is currently a greater focus on attainment than on progress. Practitioners lack reliable and robust methods and tools for assessing and tracking progress for learners with SEND and wider society appears to be shackled to unfounded / outdated perceptions about attainment – for example that GCSE grades 1-3 represent a ‘fail’.
There also seems to be a hierarchy in qualification pathways, where GCSEs / A levels are seen as the ‘elite’ qualifications and others are ‘less than’. This results in an exclusionary system. Even in some specialist provision, there exists a notion that studying to GCSE level should be the aspiration for all learners – a concept that can result in learners with recognised needs being forced through inappropriate mainstream funnel. We need to reframe what success looks like and a encourage a culture wherein finding the right pathway with an appropriate amount of challenge for each individual can be celebrated as a successful outcome.
There needs to be diversification of the methods used in exams and assessments, with consensus that the current high-stakes, rigid inflexibility does not favour all learners. The heavy over-reliance on written content, for example, does not match the way in which some learners are able to show their abilities.
In general, the amount of learning that needs to be evidenced in an exam makes it impossible for a great many learners to commit to memory. There is discord between this expectation and cognitive overload.
Exam environments, with factors like noise and lighting, can be overwhelming, especially for learners with sensory sensitivities. The reduction in non-terminal aspects of examinations – such as coursework, continuous assessment or supportive, coaching-based assessments – disadvantages some learners with SEND who may benefit from the opportunity to work outside of exam conditions.
Ofqual (2024) reports an increasing number of approved exam access arrangements for schools and colleges rising by 39.6% in the past three years. We find that the process to gain access to reasonable adjustments is too onerous and can be particularly challenging for new SENCOs. There are reports of some schools misinterpreting that reasonable adjustments in examinations are limited in some way to a cap on numbers, a limited quota rather than based on individual learner need. Problems can also arise as a result of having to use new technology as part of this, with schools reporting lack of technology and workforce training needs.
Exams are too many and too long in duration, especially where considerations around extra time for learners with additional needs and back-to-back exams over several days come into play. Aside from the logistical challenges around timetables – especially when there is a reduction in TAs – is the fact that a time extension just offers ‘more of the same’ and is unlikely to help learners showcase the best that they have to offer. There is a real danger that the need to sit for longer in stressful situations would in fact do the opposite.
There has also been a reduction in the number of alternative qualifications on offer. For example, the option of half GCSEs which allowed learners to study reduced content for a qualification at the same level, a more equitable and inclusive option.
We also believe that more alignment of curriculum content between key stages is required. At the moment, the focus of assessments is different – for example in English, there is a move from comprehension to analysis between key stages. More alignment would help us look more carefully at ages and stages.
The rigidity of phonics programmes can often exclude children with learning differences, especially those who are neurodiverse.
Focus on legible handwriting is outdated and a move towards a focus on typing skills would be more helpful. Spelling requirements are also difficult to meet – particularly for learners with dyslexia – yet don’t reflect the assistive technology available in the real world. Further to this, it is noted that although digital has become increasingly important, there is a lack of workforce confidence in using digital tools (including AI), some settings still lack access to the basics for their school, and some practitioners tell us they are unaware of their setting’s IT strategy. A shift to a digital classroom would therefore disadvantage some learners unless action is taken to address the resourcing inequities that appear to exist between schools.
Where maths is concerned, we feel there is too much content – some of which could be incorporated into other subject areas – and unnecessary testing. Specific concerns from members included the view that their local authority or MAT leadership selected curriculum resources for implementation across all schools, without consideration of the different needs of different settings or the skills of the teacher.
Transitions at all stages are important to enable the smooth movement between phases. There is an opportunity here to review that and make it better, and this is a theme that local authorities seem to be prioritising now, too. This should include transitions from education to employment, since at present, curriculum and assessment and employment don’t mesh together, this is especially relevant for disabled young people, and those with needs requiring support into adulthood. It is not possible to predict the jobs of the future, however we do know that many employers seek skills that many learners do not have. All learners should have the opportunity to develop skills for life, understand about relationships, have opportunities for agency and independence. While we recognise that it is beyond the scope of this Review, it is important to mention the relevance of effective partnerships with the Department for Work and Pensions, as well as other key stakeholders.
The nasen membership questioned the rationale for omitting the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) from this review as this important stage in education starts pre-reception, continuing through to end of reception.
The importance of a curriculum to promote speech, language and communication starts in the early years. Significant issues with oracy can be – and are being – identified in the early years but the outcomes of this Review will only begin from Year 1. We know that the best teaching should be scaffolded, so if we are waiting until Key Stage 1 to lay the first building block, it feels like a missed opportunity that will leave a gap in the early years.
There is recognition that the process of obtaining SEND support and / or EHC Plans, is seen as overly complex and reliant on parental advocacy, which can disadvantage certain families, for example, those with language barriers and / or complex needs, who are often left to navigate the system alone.
Finally, we recognise practitioners’ confidence in identifying and supporting additional needs in their learners can be one of the biggest barriers. Learners with SEND may not always receive the support they need to thrive, and their participation in lessons is often not fully supported or integrated. In many cases this is compounded by the omission of SEND specialists (SENCOs, for example) from senior leadership teams, finite human resources, limited budget for CPD and a sense that SEND is the responsibility of the few and not the many. At the same time, in our current system, valuable staff members with practical experience are restricted in their ability to make a meaningful impact due to qualification requirements.
Among the membership and community of nasen (The National Association for Special Educational Needs) there is general agreement that a range of enablers do exist but currently are not implemented consistently or sufficiently embedded. A greater deal of awareness and understanding among families and practitioners of alternative offers – and, perhaps, more reassurance from Ofsted that they are valid pathways – would help us make better use of existing qualifications. For example, entry level and level 1 qualifications mirror the content of mainstream and could be used to open up dual entry options for maths and English. Because they are assessed in a different way, they are easier for learners with SEND to access and help learners progress at their own pace. Additionally, there are other qualifications – BTECs, Cambridge Nationals, as well as those available through ASDAN, AQA, EQUALS and The Prince’s Trust – which don’t have exams, or place less emphasis on the exams that are involved.
Another example would be the theme of Preparation for Adulthood (PfA) from the earliest years. We know that this existing requirement is sometimes overlooked, but seen through the lens of the Review, it could provide a useful thread from which to hang further structure. Helping practitioners to understand what good PfA looks like could help them to see more clearly the end goals of a broad and challenging curriculum, accessible and fair assessments and appropriate qualification pathways. It also prompts the important collaboration and partnership between education and employment sectors to which we alluded previously.
Where the curriculum is broad with opportunities for learning beyond the traditional classroom – outside learning, creativity, active options – we know that there can be rewards to reap in relation to improved attendance and reduced exclusion rates. Pinc College is just one example of an alternative provision using creativity to improve attendance: https://pinccollege.ac.uk/.
Of course, whether we opt for a system that favours knowledge over skills or vice versa, the thing that will really makes the biggest difference for learners with SEND is our ability to be responsive, flexible, free in our thinking. Put simply, adaptive teaching is what all learners need most. Whatever our focus is – SEND or otherwise – each learner, each environment and each scenario will be different and must be adapted.
There is much to be learnt from our specialist colleagues. The freedom granted a number of years ago for those settings to move away from the national curriculum resulted in all specialist settings designing their own age and stage curriculum and progression frameworks. Assimilating the very best of practice from the large number of different systems that exist could prove challenging, but these ‘small steps’ models, aligned to curriculum with key points mapped to national curriculum / age or stage targets are there and are being used to great effect already. This 2023 action research shows the impressive strides made when the team at Gypsy Hill Federation (mainstream primary) collaborated with specialist leaders of education from Perseid School and Cricket Green School (Merton Special Training Association): https://my.chartered.college/impact_article/building-adaptive-expertise-to-improve-outcomes-for-learners-with-send/. This type of partnership working is also happing in the Special Partnership Trust in Cornwall and Devon, where they are working with mainstream schools to build capacity and the Tarka Trust, who are developing an adapted curriculum for specialist children and young people in mainstream.
Earlier, we reflected on the over-emphasis on attainment. It is from the specialist sector that we could learn a great deal about how to measure and demonstrate progress instead. This also applies to the early years, where seemingly small steps of progress are often important milestones. Both sectors are adept at using various models – such as RARPA, the AET framework, PIVATS, BTK, Evidence 4 learning – that look at a range of needs and demonstrate progress in all areas, even blending them together where desired. They also demonstrate great use of ‘evidence for learning’ – unequivocal video evidence of a particular task and something which would be easy to translate to other areas of the education system. nasen has developed resources to help practitioners in this way – a ‘Small steps progress tracker’, for example, was developed as part of a previous DfE workforce development programme.
Those of us who remember the introduction of the national curriculum will remember that it was challenging, but because all learners had access to the same curriculum it was one of the most inclusive and levelling changes we have seen. However, the opportunity for a bottom-up approach has been lost along the way, lack of flexibility for schools to consider their local needs or to respond to opportunities to follow learning moments, and a general feeling that the curriculum is overloaded. There are concerns that the curriculum could be ‘shrunk’ for learners with SEND and we would argue strongly that this review must not be seen as an excuse to limit opportunities or narrow the curriculum in this way. Rather, it should be an opportunity to regain time for the arts, PE and music, include opportunities to learn outside the classroom in natural environments and develop skills for life or PFA. This is important for all learners, not solely those with SEND needs. Creating a learning pathway that is more inclusive for all requires high aspirations for all and opportunities at the right stage, not necessarily at a chronological age.
The opportunity to be flexible will be essential, there must be trust in the profession, for school leaders and teachers to make decisions for their school.
We don’t want practitioners to believe that they need to do something radically different, instead, we would like them to see this as a continuum and to understand that small steps and collaboration with the specialist sector will help progress to happen.
Referring to the volume of information that learners are required to evidence in their assessments, there is a view that if exams / assessments could be modular, learners could be assessed on one topic or theme before moving onto the next element of the syllabus, the curriculum need not be narrowed, but there would be less emphasis on memory and ability to recall. Additionally, seemingly simple measures like more rest breaks, and access to voice-to-text and electronic readers cannot be underestimated, although of course, require resource.
Also important is the environment in which our young people are invited to learn and demonstrate their abilities. Just as one learning / assessment method will not fit all, neither will one standardised learning / assessment environment.
A resource to support adaptive teaching and an inclusive classroom is available to all schools, providing practical examples. Teachers have welcomed the curriculum support resources such as subject specific guidance in the Teacher Handbook: SEND: (https://www.wholeschoolsend.org.uk/resources/teacher-handbook-send), funded by the Department for Education.
Where workforce confidence and practice could be improved, there are several options we feel should routinely be explored – not least, the funded SEND CPD on offer through DfE workforce development programmes such as Universal SEND Services. If we are aiming to create a system that is equitable for all, and there is a feeling that knowledge and understanding is lacking, then this training – or at least the vast majority of it which can be accessed at no cost – should be mandated. It could be embedded into ITT and Early Career framework to offer it parity of importance with themes such as safeguarding and ensure that high-quality inclusive teaching anticipates learning differences and SEND needs will arise and be supported through quality first teaching.
Incorporating more personalised, adaptive assessments would further improve the learning experience by tailoring evaluations to each learner’s individual level. Such assessments can help reduce anxiety while still providing valuable insights into student progress, supporting a more individualised approach that also better meets the needs of learners with SEND. Learner profiles could be developed to capture this data, creating a comprehensive picture of each learner’s strengths, goals and specific challenges. This is already common practice in many mainstream and specialist settings.
SECTION 4: Ensuring an excellent foundation in maths and English
There is a further call from the membership and community of nasen (The National Association for Special Educational Needs) for recognition that academic achievements must not be seen as the sole requirement for thriving into adulthood. There is broad acknowledgement that while English and maths are important, progress might be slow for young people with SEND. These learners may also find additional discouragement in changeable grading bands that make them feel they are aiming at a moving target. Given that a worthwhile contribution to society does not rely on a GCSE grade, we question the wisdom of perpetuating this requirement and damaging the self-esteem and confidence of young people with SEND in the process through repeated re-assessment.
Equally important as academic understanding are social skills (including the appreciation of a diverse society), life skills, communication skills, real-world problem-solving, an understanding of the importance of good wellbeing and mental health and an understanding of when to seek support and where to go for it – in other words, Preparation for Adulthood (PfA). Although PfA is an existing requirement, it is sometimes overlooked. Seen through the lens of the Review, it could provide a useful thread from which to hang further structure. Helping practitioners to understand what good PfA looks like could help them to see more clearly the end goals of a broad and challenging curriculum, accessible and fair assessments and appropriate qualification pathways and help overcome the lingering reluctance to explore alternative pathways as valid routes for some learners. It also prompts the important collaboration and partnership between education and employment sectors to which we alluded previously.
Sometimes, pushing learners along inappropriate routes is simply the means to an end and a way to unlock the next step on a journey that would suit them. For this reason, we call for increased flexibility in the specifications and requirements for post-16 pathways. One way to achieve this might be to offer a higher status to functional skills. However, there is some question around whether these courses are equivalent to level 2, so perhaps a review of these curricula, and the option of a range of entry levels for functional courses would also be worthwhile.
We would support the recommendations of the OCR in ‘Striking the balance’ – a review of 11-16 curriculum and assessment (https://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/717919-striking-the-balance.pdf), specifically the introduction of a qualification in the basic use of English and maths to be taken at age 14, but which can be taken whenever a student is ready. Benchmarking the desired skills in these vital subjects should provide feedback on what the student has achieved and where extra support may be required to get the fundamentals right.
In general, there is a sense that the curricula are far too overloaded, expectations are unrealistic and transitions to next steps need to be carefully considered.
Constantly having an expectation of where children need to be at every age and stage compounds the deficit model and leads to more demand for SEND support. For example, where a child isn’t meeting early years milestones in speech, language and communication, by the time they move into school, their behaviours may lead to identification and support of social, emotional and mental health needs and we end up addressing the symptoms instead of the cause. Getting it wrong at the earliest stages for children is placing yet more pressure on children, their families and the whole SEND system.
The focus on Progress 8 and Attainment 8 should be removed, or the number of qualifications that contribute should be increased – in essence, creating a more holistic version of the ‘added value’ measure.
The current exams represent a memory test rather than a demonstration of learning and understanding or a display of vital life skills, and as previously stated a move towards assessment over time would be welcomed. Rethinking Assessment https://rethinkingassessment.com/ have researched how such assessment can support Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) measures, which evaluate how well learners perform in reading, maths and science literacy to meet real-life challenges.
Expectations of reading ability are often too high and can mean that learners who don’t find reading easy experience problems accessing curricula and understanding what they need to do in assessments across all subjects, not just English and maths. Providing a range of learning hooks and assessment options that don’t rely on reading ability would be beneficial for many learners.
There is recognition that Oracy could be an enabler but speaking and listening aspects – certainly in English – have been removed from assessments. In one of our member discussions, concern was raised that even drama assessments now take the written form. Oracy would be important to reintroduce so that opportunities can be widened at all key stages, and it has a place in all subjects. Voice 21 (https://voice21.org/) could be a useful enabler. We also need to ensure that there is shared understanding of what oracy means for children with speech, language and communication needs. We need to maximise input from specialists – for example working with Speech and Language Therapists to co-construct appropriate curricula. This would enable greater scaffolds, from the early years, across all phases to support oracy. This will be increasingly important when we maximise opportunities for digital technology, including AI.
Exam environments, with factors like noise and lighting, can be overwhelming, especially for learners with sensory sensitivities. Suggestions included modifying exam spaces to be more accommodating, something that feels especially important in a system that currently favours assessment through written examination.
The volume of assessment is demotivating for those already struggling. It is felt keenly that there needs to be a cut off point for learners who do not attain these qualifications despite their very best and repeated efforts. English and maths requirements impact access to / delivery of many post-16 routes, including Assisted Internships. Some young people with a learning disability might never achieve a maths and English GCSE grade 4 or above but that does not necessarily mean that they could never contribute to the workplace. It can be dispiriting to see a young person opt out of an assisted internship – and all the benefits for the individual and society that entails – because they find it demoralising to go to college for two days a week to repeatedly ‘fail’ in English and maths. Linked to this are the changes to assessment and curriculum that have taken place in BTEC and T levels. Where once these presented great options, the increase in content coupled with a move towards exam-only assessment means that they are no longer accessible to young people with cognition and learning needs. It feels like more flexible, supportive, vocational pathways need to be reconsidered.
SECTION 5: Curriculum and qualification content
In responding to this question, the membership and community of nasen (The National Association for Special Educational Needs) consider that curriculum content is overloaded and does not allow for pace and adaptation. The requirement to cover content in its entirety has, for some practitioners, removed the joy from teaching.
We call for a more flexible and balanced curriculum, where the development of social, emotional, and practical life skills is prioritised alongside academic knowledge, and where vocational skills are seen as equitable options to academic skills and attainment. There should also be freedom around what is taught and how, and the opportunity to explore the curriculum through the different lenses of cultures and backgrounds so it reflects the life experiences of all learners.
In this way, learners would be supported towards understanding and acceptance of diversity in all its forms – SEN, neurodiversity and disability included along with gender, sexuality, language, age, race, religion Currently, where diversity is explored, practitioners feel the time they spend on it means they risk missing other content – there is a desire that this learning enrichment should be built in, not added on.
It is also noted that the diversity lacking in the curriculum is reflected in the makeup of the education workforce. Were there more diversity here, a wider perspective would undoubtedly be achieved. In the same vein, there is a call for more coproduction and the opportunity for families and the wider society to contribute ideas for a well-rounded curriculum.
SECTION 7: Assessment and accountability
The membership and community of nasen (The National Association for Special Educational Needs) feels there is a need to alleviate the pressure on both learners and teachers, particularly in terms of assessments. The current system places unnecessary stress on learners, especially those with SEND and mental health needs, which has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic.
Too much emphasis is placed on formal assessments and targets that may not reflect a student's progress or well-being but rather serve to inform league tables. Expectations in KS1 and KS2 – especially around SATs – jar somewhat with the holistic approach to assessments in the EYFS.
At its most extreme, it is felt that assessments lead to a greater focus on phonics than on the development of learners and that a misdirected focus on SATs severely restricts the Y6 curriculum. This was echoed by parents who contributed to our discussions, with one telling us that her son ‘missed out on a lot’ due to anxiety around his performance in SATs. There was also inconsistency in understanding among parents, some of whom took the purpose of the tests to be a way to measure a teacher’s effectiveness rather than a learner’s progress.
A more practical, streamlined assessment system is recommended. Existing tools like the B^2 system are seen as overly complex and time-consuming, making it difficult for teachers to track and evaluate progress effectively. A simpler, more intuitive system that focuses on clear, manageable goals would save teachers time and improve the quality of assessments.
It’s important for there to be a more consistent approach to assessing and supporting learners with SEND, especially for those who move between schools. Clearer government guidance would ensure that assessments are uniform across different settings, and learners' progress is tracked seamlessly, regardless of school transitions.
Rather than having an overwhelming number of objectives, there should be a focus on core ‘non-negotiable' skills that every child should master. These skills could then be broken down into smaller, more manageable steps, making it easier to assess learners' progress and support their learning needs.
While academic progress is important, there needs to be more emphasis on holistic support for learners with SEND, including mental health, social skills, well-being and Preparation for Adulthood (pfA). This should be incorporated into assessments to ensure that learners are not only meeting academic targets but are also developing essential life skills.
Incorporating more personalised, adaptive assessments would further improve the learning experience by tailoring evaluations to each learner’s individual level. Such assessments can help reduce anxiety while still providing valuable insights into progress, supporting a more individualised approach that also better meets the needs of learners with SEND. Learner profiles, such as those supported through ‘Rethinking Assessment’ and the Skills Builder Partnership, could be developed to capture this data, creating a comprehensive picture of each learner’s strengths, barriers, and specific challenges.
Discussions referenced teacher autonomy, and whether a return to teacher assessment would decrease stress and enhance the experience for all, with the added benefit of the professional trust that teachers would be afforded. Were assessment done in this way, review panels within settings could ensure consistency and fairness.
There is overwhelming recognition from the membership and community of nasen (The National Association for Special Educational Needs) that we need to move away from standardised assessment that is solely exam-based. The current reliance on written exams to capture five years of knowledge is seen as inadequate, particularly for learners with SEND. A broader portfolio of assessments – project-based work, enterprise projects, voice-to-text, presentations, practical demonstrations, oral assessments, video evidence, real-world assessments – should be used to capture a student’s full development, rather than a single written statement delivered in a moment in time. It is felt that even small changes, such as examining modules at regular intervals rather than a final end-of-course assessment, would make a big difference. The high-stakes, exam-focused system significantly impacts learners' mental health, contributing to problems with stress and self-esteem. Assessments should address and support learners’ well-being and life skills, not just measure academic performance. Reducing the pressure for all stakeholders – parents included – that exams place on learners, especially those with SEND, would better prepare them for future challenges.
We know that ‘Rethinking Assessment’, reports of evidence from teachers and leaders who are testing the implementation of learner profiles in primary and secondary schools in Greater London, Greater Manchester and Hertfordshire suggest that across phases, learner profiles are being used effectively for reflective practice to support increasing learner engagement, motivation and their transitions. Another key issue is that reasonable adjustments are not put in place consistently across education settings and rely too heavily on parent / carer advocacy. There must be consistency of guidance and application so that children and young people are not penalised because their advocates do not understand what support is available of how best to secure it.
There is also concern that the workforce is not properly equipped to meet the need for emotional support for learners who are facing stress or trauma as a result of the current assessment requirements. There is a dire need for changes to the structure of assessments as well as better training to identify signs of assessment related stress and act to support Social Emotional Mental Health needs.
The membership and community of nasen (The National Association for Special Educational Needs) has been pleased to see that we are moving away from single word judgements and towards a better understanding of the context of settings when they are inspected. They did, however, also express a range of less positive views around accountability, attributing Ofsted with promoting a culture of performance that disincentives inclusion of learners with SEND. As one nasen member put it, the current approach to Ofsted grading and reporting “supports the ‘moving along’ of children and young people with SEND so that performance and reputation are protected”. There is a need to celebrate the schools who are genuinely inclusive, often working in communities that face significant challenges, yet are penalised by the current accountability approaches.
The Government and Ofsted should have a clearer understanding of the diverse challenges in schools serving learners with SEND. This includes visiting schools with strong inclusive practices to inform policy and improve consistency in inspections. From this, we can work towards clear guidance and an engaging dialogue of what inclusion involves. All learners should enjoy full support and have the confidence to participate, members reported that external guidance isn’t readily available until a young person receives an EHC Plan. It is the view of nasen members that there is insufficient priority given to resourcing support and incentivising inclusion. Where needs are identified, there should be resources available to support progress and access to the curriculum, based on the knowledge of the SENCO or teacher. This would enable actions in line with the SEN Code of Practice, at the earliest possible stage of identifying need in keeping with the Graduated Approach. Resources such as nasen’s Graduated Approach Prompt (https://nasen.org.uk/resources/graduated-approach-prompt) are available – it would serve practitioners and benefit learner outcomes if these quality assured resources were signposted.
There is a call for making schools more accountable in the implementation of equality, diversity and inclusive practice. Governors and executive leadership should support strategic improvement. A supportive coaching model for quality assurance could help schools improve their SEND provision, supported by a national body but informed by real-world SEND practitioners. This peer led approach should focus on coaching and support rather than punitive measures, fostering continuous improvement and underpinning an education system that is inclusive of all learners. At nasen we have a range of practical examples of peer-to-peer mentoring for school leaders and SENCOs, with evidence of impact on school improvement.
We also believe that moving to a standardised EHC Plan system would provide a genuine incentive for inclusion because there would be greater transparency of ambition and progress towards outcomes.
We are aware that an appropriate curriculum has a positive effect on learner wellbeing, but too often we see the enforcement of a rigid approach to curriculum that doesn’t adapt to learners. The strength and value of the ‘braver’ education leaders who give their teams ownership of the content they deliver and the freedom to plan bespoke content that links to curriculum, reflects specific cohort’s needs, and includes measures around learner wellbeing should be acknowledged.
Our members feel that the focus on phonics from reception onwards, is one such example of an unforgiving and disincentivising tool for learning, particularly for learners with SEND. There must be recognition that children and young people will learn at their own pace and in their own way and the introduction of a system that relieves pressure for both learners and teachers is called for.
There is a final reiteration that collaboration between specialist and mainstream is crucial, as is connectivity between services. We need a consistent approach and a clear, shared understanding if we are to move forward effectively.
SECTION 9: Other issues on which we would welcome views
While the membership and community of nasen (The National Association for Special Educational Needs) recognise that core schools funding and workforce recruitment and retention is out of scope for this Review, we can’t feedback in earnest without acknowledging that it is a contributing factor. There is a great deal of concern that the money allocated for SEND support is insufficient and allocated in an administratively burdensome way. Settings struggle with limited budgets and resources, often having to reduce the workforce at a time when needs are growing. This impacts on their ability to make reasonable adjustments that may require workforce capacity. Our response includes reference to support for exams. This is only one example of an adjustment to enable an equitable assessment. Further consideration of the necessary adjustments when assessing or tracking progress across all phases, including the early years is required.
Respondents to nasen took the opportunity to reiterate concerns about SEND within the current education system. There is a call for a ‘root and branch’ review of the SEND system, directly informed by the experiences of those working to distribute funding and deliver support at an operational level, ensuring resources are used effectively and reflects the current needs of learners with SEND.
